Also in many studies patients diagnosed with “terminal” illnesses were either cured or incorrectly diagnosed, what would have happened to these patients of euthanasia was legal? This argument however is countered because most of those patients were not at a stage in their illness were euthanasia would become an option and even if they wished to die they would not need the help of the institution.
“Woman on right-to-death row given wake up drug.”
A woman in a seemingly terminal coma was given right to die by the court but that right was revoked because of the advent of a new drug which has brought people out of comas such as this one, despite the protests of her family. Although if the drug is unsuccessful then the right-to-die will be restored. This begs the question of whether the right should be revoked under any circumstances even those such as this.
Another example of euthanasia in the media is in the controversial play “Whose life is it anyway.” Which confronts many issues on whether euthanasia is right and the struggle of having it put through covered with a comedic overtone. It is based on the story of an accident victim who is paralysed from the neck down, and has no chance of recovery although his intellect is intact. It shows how many doctors can get so wrapped in saving human life that they forget that that life has the right to choose.
One of the main issues that euthanasia brings up is religion, this can work both ways, for example in Christianity suicide is a cardinal sin and as such even if they are indirectly involved any Christian members of the chain in command will always be against it no matter the situation. Also some religions do not allow for certain medical treatments, such as Jehovah’s witnesses who believe that blood transfusions are against God. Should we allow these people to die just because they disagree with the methods? Whilst we should respect their opinions surly it is better for them if they live? Religion may change but life will not.
The law in Britain is generally against euthanasia and everything to do with it but this may be because the law in Britain and in some other countries is based on Christianity. Also the point of law in any country should, surly, be to preserve life as all costs. When law is involved specifics are very important and as such should there be a legal differentiation between assisted suicide, actually killing and removal of treatment resulting in the death of the patient?
All of this assumes that the decision of death has been taken, but who has the right to make that decision? The patient? Only they know the suffering they feel and have rights over their life. If the patient is unconscious or unable to make the decision themselves then who is left with the responsibility? The family? They would know the wishes of the patient. The doctor? They have the experience and medical knowledge. The law? They have the power. More often than not the doctor has their say which brings me on to medical science. Whether they re postponing death just because they can, ignoring whether they should.
The value of the doctor’s opinion depends upon the sanity of the patient is debatable because is being suicidal suggest insanity in itself? Or can there be a rational train of thought which results in wishing to die? Is any depression rational? To summarise this is a multi faceted issue and has no definite answers however in my opinion it should be applicable but only after court hearing due to the possibility of corruption but that begs the question where should we draw the line? Where should euthanasia become possible? This I do not know but perhaps an entire jury would be able to do so? I also believe that euthanasia is different to the removal of treatment and perhaps this is a more acceptable option because it allows for the chanceof recovery.
